This passage comes at the end of Mike Isikoff's piece on who will have authority over the Fitzgerald investigation now that Deputy Attorney General James Comey has left for the private sector ...

Fitzgerald recently called White House aide Karl Rove's secretary and his former top aide to testify before the grand jury. They were asked why there was no record of a phone call from Time reporter Matt Cooper, with whom Rove discussed the CIA agent, says a source close to Rove who requested anonymity because the FBI asked participants not to comment. The source says the call went through the White House switchboard, not directly to Rove.

My understanding is that this issue is becoming a key one for whatever it is that Fitzgerald is trying to prove. But is this credible? Do White House phone logs not get kept just because they come in through the White House switchboard? I've never worked there of course. But that seems hard to believe. There's really little point in keeping logs unless they are at least fairly comprehensive -- you look back and you know who you did talk to, when, and who you didn't. And lots of calls must come in through the switchboard.

So this is a question to various friends and sometime sources who've worked this White House and others. Does this switchboard call story make sense to you?

Drudge says Mike Allen of the Post has accepted a job covering the White House for Time.

If true, it's a huge loss for the Post. The daily political press is filled with more than a few time-servers and many more who have difficulty seeing beyond the narrow minutiae of what they're covering or the iron chains of conventional wisdom. But Allen is consistently good, day in and day out, in most all the ways I can think of to judge a political reporter.

I fear though that this isn't just a loss for the Post but also a loss for me and everyone else who counts on good political reporting. I know I'll hear from my friends at the news weeklies about this. But it's not clear to me that the sort of daily and detailed coverage of the big political stories of the day -- that he excels at -- can be duplicated in the very different, and sometimes sanded-down, big-picturish format of the weekly news magazine.

Here is the full page in which Joe Wilson's entry appears in Who's Who.

I will try to do a post later on explaining why the whole commotion over Valerie 'Plame's' mention in the bio is simply an attempt on Novak's part to confuse the issue. It does have some value, however, in as much as it seems again to show Novak's mendacity.

Everyone seems to agree that Valerie Plame is listed in the 2003 Who's Who entry for Joe Wilson. A number of you have looked at copies you yourselves have access to.

Can someone scan the page in question and send it in?

Late Update: A number of you have now been kind enough to send me in scans of the page. But I've also found out that Wizbang has the page posted online. So I'm going to link to them. I also have the whole page. So I'll post that shortly.

Okay, I had to go out this morning. So maybe this is already old news. But it turns out that was an apparently-menacing copy of Who's Who sitting there on the table as Bob Novak stormed off the set yesterday on CNN.

In a column that ran in the Sun-Times on Monday, Novak suggested he learned Plame's identity partly from reading Who's Who in America. A CNN source said a producer had placed a copy of Who's Who on the set Thursday prior to the taping, apparently so it could be consulted while Novak was asked about the issue.

Maybe this is all just an ingenious guerilla marketing campaign by Who's Who. After all, have they gotten this much publicity in a century?